SUDHIR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-3-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 09,1976

SUDHIR CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RANGACHARI V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KHEM CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. BIMAL KUMAR PANDIT [REFERRED TO]
DWARKACHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BALRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-10-113] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1989-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE VS. MAHAVIR PARSHAD [LAWS(P&H)-1983-7-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)ON December 8, 1964 the petitioner appellant who was a permanent Government servant in the State Government, was served with the following charge sheet: "whereas it has been made to appear to the Governor that you, Sri sudhir Chandra Chakraborty, have, while employed as Forest Ranger, canning under the 24-Parganas forest Division, been guilty of the following charges namely: (1) That you are found to be in possession of a property to wit a two stride building on a plot of land measuring about 4. 25 kottahs situated at 15b, N. N, Ghosh Lane, Tollygunge, valued according to you, at rs. 30000/- which is utterly disproportionate to the known sources of your income and the acquisition of which property has not been satisfactorily accounted for by you with the result that there is warrant for reasonable inference that the said property was acquired by you in criminal misconduct in the discharge of your duties. (2) That the declaration of assets submitted by you on. . . . . . are materially incomplete, misleading and false in regard to several items. "
(2.)THE petitioner was asked to put in his written statement of defence 1c the Enquiring Officer, appointed for the purpose of holding the inquiry, stating whether he desire to be heard in person or to call any witness or to produce any document in his defence and showing cause Why the penalty of dismissal or other penalty as would be deemed fit should not be imposed on him.
(3.)THE petitioner on January 15, 1965 filed his written statement of defence deny the charges. Thereafter on behalf of the Government a letter was written to the Enquiring Officer on March 3, 1965 which is as follows:
"i have to state that the charges framed against Shri S. C. Chakraborty are not in keeping with facts incorporated in our enquiry report. As a matter of fact, we have not at our disposal the evidence necessary for charge No. 1 and as such we do not press for this charge in our report. Regarding Charge No. 2 the charge and the statement of allegations are not clear and unambiguous as some vital information is lacking. Our evidence Warrants charges of different kind on the basis of information at our disposal. I, therefore, pray that I may be permitted not to proceed with the charges framed. We are writing to the forest departments for taking further and necessary action in the matter. "

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.